What is seriously making you think right now?

[Aglaya]

I started putting this in the movie thread, but I realized that it would be a massive derail if anyone else was actually interested in it, so I thought I'd start something new for it.
Just finished watching Monster, which I'm glad I saw, but I will never watch again.  The most interesting part?  The friend with whom I watched it is a mental health professional, and she said that there is some debate about whether Aileen Wuornos was actually a serial killer or not.  If not, there are no female serial killers.  That's right, due to the definition of serial killer, all but possibly one of them are male.  The FBI estimates that at any given time, there are 200-250 serial killers operating in America.  The law of large numbers (which I am a big fan of) would dictate that some of these would be women, but actual evidence would indicate that none of them are.  So is it that women just don't do that, or is it that they just don't get caught, or is it something else entirely?  Apparently, there is no a general consensus.  Women do seem to tend to commit more personal crimes, killing their children and families.  Is it maybe that women personalize things more, that they don't get power out of ritualized killing as much as getting some satisfaction out of destroying people who have brought something into their life that they don't want? 
The reason that even the multiple murdering women are not considered serial killers is that in the definition used by the Nation Institute of Justice since 1988 includes the presence of "sadistic, sexual overtones." Again, some people claim that some women have, in fact, had that present in their crimes, but not everyone agrees.  Even Robert K. Ressler, who actually coined the phrase "serial killer" when he worked for the FBI, said that "(m)ales are definitely the killers among us."  Two of the women who could most easily be considered serial killers (Martha Beck and Rosemary West) weren't working on their own, they were with a male partner.
One of the reasons that Wuornos is not considered a serial killer is that she killed all of her victims with a gun, which serial killers almost never use.  Also, she claims that all of her murders were in self defense, though even in Monster, which was made from her story as she tells it, it looks like that maybe that was the case with the first one, but the others look like they weren't actually, and she may have just created that, consciously or unconsciously, to justify killing them. 
(Also, in case you were wondering how I suddenly became so resourceful, The A to Z Encyclopedia of Serial Killers is really interesting.  That's where all the official theory stuff came from [except the some of the numbers, which I got from my friend].  The rest is just my wild, unqualified speculation)
Also, if you're interested in such things, read about Albert Fish.  He's quite fascinating.

[jebreject]

It's all in narrow defnitions

[dieblucasdie]

If you're a man, a crime against the public at large is most taboo; if you're a woman, a crime against domesticity is most taboo.

[Aglaya]

Also, and something I forgot to mention before, juries tend to be softer on women than on men.

[RavingLunatic]

I think the only reason you find this mystifying, Aglaya, is that we've all been taught that there are no significant psychological differences between males and females when there in fact are. The psychological differences between males and females are not all due to socialization; some are innate. I'm not aware of the statistics, but I know males are a lot more likely in general to commit murder, and ths serial killer thing may just be a reflection of this. For all I know though, it could be something else entirely.

[jebreject]

I think the only reason you find this mystifying, Aglaya, is that we've all been taught that there are no significant psychological differences between males and females when there in fact are. The psychological differences between males and females are not all due to socialization; some are innate. I'm not aware of the statistics, but I know males are a lot more likely in general to commit murder, and ths serial killer thing may just be a reflection of this. For all I know though, it could be something else entirely.

My gut reaction says this contains at least a decent amount of hogwash

Not that everyone is all the same or anything like that, just that I seriously doubt there are that many innate psychological differences between males and females, and I really really really doubt that there's something inherent in being a male that makes you more prone to violence/likely to murder. I'd be willing to bet all of my next paycheck that this difference is purely social.

(I am open to being wrong on this, however, so if any of y'all have any evidence to suggest innate psychological differences between men and women or some kind of aggro gene that is more likely in males, please, do share)

[alex]

Do you suppose that gut reaction is an innate behaviour or due to socialisation, Jeb?

(edit: that was written when your post was still a one-liner, too. I agree with what you're saying in the rest of the post, anyway.)

[jebreject]

Do you suppose that gut reaction is an innate behaviour or due to socialisation, Jeb?

My bullshit detector is wholly genetic.

[alistarr*]

my immediate thought is that men are grown to be powerful, so it's little surprise that those having trouble with their place in the world will commit acts of violence/attempt to assert their superiority over whatever target they see (and, perhaps, whatever target they see as easiest?).

this has been the case since it was a necessity for the one not bearing a child to protect and provide for the one bearing a child, and has - as is evidenced by a great number of things prevalent in our current culture - remained the case long after it ceased to be a necessity or even useful.

these are your "innate" differences, and it's the fact that they're seen as "innate" that in my potentially hot headed and not entirely correct opinion leads to things like serial murder.

[alistarr*]

Do you suppose that gut reaction is an innate behaviour or due to socialisation, Jeb?

(edit: that was written when your post was still a one-liner, too. I agree with what you're saying in the rest of the post, anyway.)

this leads inveitably (for me) to the conclusion that it doesn't matter whether or not something is genetic or socially ingrained; what matters is whether it is good or useful, whether it helps people to live, whether it works. i'm positing those serial murder statistics as evidence that the classic characterisations of men and women do the opposite of work, as far as a significant number of people are concerned.

[Greg Nog]

Not that everyone is all the same or anything like that, just that I seriously doubt there are that many innate psychological differences between males and females, and I really really really doubt that there's something inherent in being a male that makes you more prone to violence/likely to murder.

You mean, like increased production of testosterone?

[alistarr*]

i mean, not disputing the main thrust of what you're saying, but would testosterone actually lead you to plan and execute a series of crimes against unknown victims?

[KJ]

(I am open to being wrong on this, however, so if any of y'all have any evidence to suggest innate psychological differences between men and women or some kind of aggro gene that is more likely in males, please, do share)

The David Reimer case has been widely taken as very strong evidence for innate differences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

The jist of my Psychology A Level course was that social-influence on gender roles (and personality as a whole) is in reality far, far less than what one might hope. Like 90/10 in terms of nature/nurture. 10% can still make a massive difference of course.

(All of this comes with the fairly large qualifier that an A Level course is some way from the cutting edge of Psychological research)

[Greg Nog]

i mean, not disputing the main thrust of what you're saying, but would testosterone actually lead you to plan and execute a series of crimes against unknown victims?

Welp, I'd be hard-pressed to say exactly what would lead me to plan and execute a series of crimes against unknown victims.

[jess]

Anti-social personality disorder, or psychopathy, the one generally associated with serial murder (think the guy in American Psycho for a somewhat extreme example), is almost entirely diagnosed in men. I don't think that it's a diagnosis bias so much as that stats show that the analagous female diagnosis seems to be histrionic personality disorder. Both are about equally represented in the respective genders, and both seem to arrise in similar situations. In both cases, the person is self-absorbed and tends to provoke people or create situations to stimulate themselves. However, while APD is an exaggeration of stereotypical male features (aggression, risk-taking, drugs and alcohol) which can include violence towards others and murder, HPD presents as an exaggeration of streotypical female features such as sexuality/seductiveness, seeking of approval from others, creating of social drama, and intense displays of emotion. I completely buy that they're related especially after meeting the son of a woman I know who definitely fits the HPD profile, and realizing with a friend of mine that the son is pretty clearly demonstrating anti-social tendencies already. It was pretty disturbing to witness.

So I don't think that something about just being male makes you likely to kill people so much as something about being make means that if you're then having these sorts of serious problems (which are something that generally are a lifelong, developing in childhood sort of thing), you might be more likely to react that way than a woman, who will still do destructive things, just likely different things. I do think that the gender divergence is likely caused some combination of social and biological influences.

Also, juries are not softer on women, at least not across the board. Women who kill their husbands, often because their husbands are battering them, tend be given amazingly harsh sentences, worse then many male murderers. I don't have the stats anymore, but I've seen them in my Psychological Trauma class and at Take Back the Night and it's pretty shocking. I think women who kill are seen as greater monsters than men who do, because it's not supposed to be in "their nature" and so people are more horrified if anything and more likely to stop thinking of them as women in a way.

[heather marie]

Some would argue that in Aileen Wuornous' case, it was an example of vigilante justice, but with men, there seem to be more borderline personality disorders. But I'm not a psych major, nor do I know much about personality disorders, so this is all assumption, really.




edit: and scrolling down, I see that jess posted a much longer, detailed response about that, so there you go.

[alistarr*]

i mean, not disputing the main thrust of what you're saying, but would testosterone actually lead you to plan and execute a series of crimes against unknown victims?

Welp, I'd be hard-pressed to say exactly what would lead me to plan and execute a series of crimes against unknown victims.

don't call me welp, welp.

same question, substitute "a person" in place of "you".

[Greg Nog]

I actually can't tell wheter you were kidding or not, so just to clear up any possible misunderstandings: I was using "welp" as a synonym for "well", not as a misspelling of "whelp".

Again, though, I don't really know what exactly would make a person go all serial-killy.  Given that I've never been in that kind of mindset, myself, (and that we're not talking about a specific person here) I don't know how fruitful it would be to armchair-analyze a nonexistent hypothetical dude who kills lots of strangers.

[jess]

Some would argue that in Aileen Wuornous' case, it was an example of vigilante justice, but with men, there seem to be more borderline personality disorders. But I'm not a psych major, nor do I know much about personality disorders, so this is all assumption, really.




edit: and scrolling down, I see that jess posted a much longer, detailed response about that, so there you go.

Actually, borderline personality disorders are much more common in women, but those don't generally lead to murdering people, more self-harm issues such as cutting, suicide, etc. There's a lot of the personality disorders though, so hard to keep track of them unless you've had to learn it all.

[alistarr*]

I actually can't tell wheter you were kidding or not, so just to clear up any possible misunderstandings: I was using "welp" as a synonym for "well", not as a misspelling of "whelp".

Again, though, I don't really know what exactly would make a person go all serial-killy.  Given that I've never been in that kind of mindset, myself, (and that we're not talking about a specific person here) I don't know how fruitful it would be to armchair-analyze a nonexistent hypothetical dude who kills lots of strangers.

then we are in agreement, or at least not in disagreement, on this one point.

[theartlessmonster]

I don't really know what exactly would make a person go all serial-killy. 

then you need to ride the MUNI in San Francisco, it will become super clear.

and only the lovely and talented Gred could make serial killing sound so cute, "serial-killy" 

[elpollodiablo]

Reading some of the arguments we've had about gender issues and innate sexual differences really opened me up to thinking about gender as more a product of socialization than genetics.
That being said, at a party last week where we were having this discussion, I overheard a man say "I believe gender is a social artifact up to the point that I'm never gonna get pregnant"
So like, all theoretical discussions can benefit from a quick shot of pragmatism now and then is how I feel about things.

[Andrew_TSKS]

I do think that the gender divergence is likely caused some combination of social and biological influences.

agreed, and it's really hard to say what percentage of each factors in. but this discussion is about so much more than that. it's a huge step from talking about biological gender roles to social characterizations of acceptable male and female behavior. identifying as a man or as a woman doesn't mean that you have any specific set of personality traits, and i think in talking about what it is that determines gender identification, we're shortcutting past a few essential steps in the process.

i have other things to say in this thread, but they pretty much constitute personal attacks, so i'll refrain.

[dieblucasdie]

There was a study released a couple of months ago (I couldn't find it right quick but I'll keep looking for a link) about how hardcore gender socialization begins at a month old or less.  Given the constant and overwhelming way gender roles are taught and enforced, I think it's almost impossible to overestimate the role of socialization. 

Also, compared to other primates, there's a much narrower size and hormonal difference between human males and females.

But really, the whole point is that gender roles are SO rigidly enforced that it's impossible to even guess what a world where the only gender differences were physical would look like. 

As for the more specific question of serial killers, my kneejerk reaction, (not knowing much about the subject outside of movies) would be a more qualified/complex version of my previous drunken statement.

[dieblucasdie]

Also, and something I forgot to mention before, juries tend to be softer on women than on men.

Also, this is only true in certain types of cases.